Would you want to have a better reward if you are correct?Say Muslim is correct, you don't know but still logically you should choose christianity. Same bet different reward.

Why choose atheism if it has no reward?

Now does anyone have counter-arguments or other logic?

Yes. I am highly apposed to Pascal's Wager for several reasons. What if god only put people in heaven for logically thinking out their pragmatic decision to believe in a god? If you believed in god, but didn't have good reasoning for it, you would go to hell. If you are an atheist and there is a god, you would still go to heaven for having the logical stance. Also, there are an infinite variations in the ways you could go to heaven. Yes, it could be simply believing in a god. What if it was how many bananas you ate throughout your life? If you ate 400, then you go to heaven. Anything more or less would result in hell. We could move around the number to all counting numbers, change the food, and make so many variations to this. Also, what makes you think that the afterlife will be diatomic?

Edit: Diatomic was a poor choice for the word I was looking for. I meant "binary." Also, how did you assign the arbitrary values of which heaven was better for each religion? Wouldn't you also have to do that for hell too? You can also make an infinite number of religions up that have just as good heavens and just as bad hells as christianity, but they will all be mutually exclusive. Therefore, being a christian won't keep you safe from hell. You were actually supposed to worship the flying spaghetti monster.

If god doesn't exist it doesn't matter if you are either. The same thing happens. You never think, see, hear, smell, taste, or feel anything again, you are gone forever.

If god does exist then if : At 5/29/2015 8:08:06 AM, CristianGeek wrote:Atheist vs. Christian

You are positing your opinion that this life has no meaning; a strawman.

Additionally, in adhering to the doctrines of Christianity, one sacrifices time and freedom. Of course, I don't mean that "freedom" means that you get to go around doing malicious things (the people that do that do so regardless of their religious stance). Such an example would be if you were friends with a homosexual person (found out later) and your Christian beliefs condemned homosexuality. Christianity then imposes detrimental effects to your life.

Christian vs. Every other religion, faith, or deity.

That is very presumptuous to assume that you know (and can numerically value) all of the afterlife possibilities. Are you just choosing a religion by the best reward? That is an absurd and insincere motive to follow a religion. And hey, in my religion, you soul gets to split in two and experience *two* heavens at once! Willing to convert? :)

People have reasons for believing their religion; they do not simply look for the biggest trophy at the end of the road. This is a very superficial means of choosing a religion, rather than actually believing in it.

***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

At 5/29/2015 8:40:44 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:Edit: Diatomic was a poor choice for the word I was looking for. I meant "binary." Also, how did you assign the arbitrary values of which heaven was better for each religion? Wouldn't you also have to do that for hell too? You can also make an infinite number of religions up that have just as good heavens and just as bad hells as Christianity, but they will all be mutually exclusive. Therefore, being a Christian won't keep you safe from hell. You were actually supposed to worship the flying spaghetti monster.

That thing about the giant flying spaghetti monster is too funny. Thanks for that laugh. I literally LOLed in bursts for five minutes.

Now for the argument.

I wanted to make this point to but I chose to save the argument.The reason I picked those is because they are common and so, so many people follow them.If there is a giant spaghetti monster, I would tell it that it needs to make itself known and argue I wasn't given a fair chance. And try to avoid hell.But about the flying spaghetti monster is that you wanted to make an extreme example, which means you think it is extreme and thus don't actually believe there is a giant spaghetti monster. Which foils your point.

Another part of my logic is that the religions/faiths/deity that are widely accepted are more likely to be true if there is a god.Exclusive: The Christian god is much, much less random because in the bible it says he is absolutely perfect.

As for the heaven values some religion/faith/deity heavens are better than others.And why the heck would you go to hell for following the right one?

Would you want to have a better reward if you are correct?Say Muslim is correct, you don't know but still logically you should choose christianity. Same bet different reward.

Why choose atheism if it has no reward?

Now does anyone have counter-arguments or other logic?

Yes. I am highly apposed to Pascal's Wager for several reasons. What if god only put people in heaven for logically thinking out their pragmatic decision to believe in a god? If you believed in god, but didn't have good reasoning for it, you would go to hell. If you are an atheist and there is a god, you would still go to heaven for having the logical stance. Also, there are an infinite variations in the ways you could go to heaven. Yes, it could be simply believing in a god. What if it was how many bananas you ate throughout your life? If you ate 400, then you go to heaven. Anything more or less would result in hell. We could move around the number to all counting numbers, change the food, and make so many variations to this. Also, what makes you think that the afterlife will be diatomic?

At 5/29/2015 11:49:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

The conclusion, when we consider other gods and other means of getting into heaven or if there is no afterlife, it is actually better (through the same logic of Pascal's Wager) to be an atheist.

Ignorence is bliss. Christians will live their life believing they go to heaven when they die. They don't ever think they will waste time therefore it is not a waste of time, it is what they want do do with their time.If you believe you are doing the right thing you feel good.My point there is it is not a waste of time unless you believe it is.

Two more wins for the christian vs. atheists.They didn't feel they wasted their time.

And why the heck would you go to a heaven for disbelief.In some paralell universe you do, and it could be this one you and i are in but still what kind of rule is that?Do you believe we are in that paralell universe.

Would you want to have a better reward if you are correct?Say Muslim is correct, you don't know but still logically you should choose christianity. Same bet different reward.

Why choose atheism if it has no reward?

I think it's less a choice and more a result from life experiences. I guess you could claim to be an atheist but it probably wouldn't mean much personally if you didn't really feel that way. The same thing with claiming to believe a god. If acting as a Christian = Christian identity then maybe you're right.

But if the man acting as a Christian doesn't believe in his work, it'd most likely feel like a waste of time (this is referring to what you later wrote).

Maybe the dinosaurs found immortality and then killed themselves off having no purpose for life.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

Pascal's argument works for the existence of an insane evil God as well, so there is that.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

At 5/29/2015 8:40:44 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:Edit: Diatomic was a poor choice for the word I was looking for. I meant "binary." Also, how did you assign the arbitrary values of which heaven was better for each religion? Wouldn't you also have to do that for hell too? You can also make an infinite number of religions up that have just as good heavens and just as bad hells as Christianity, but they will all be mutually exclusive. Therefore, being a Christian won't keep you safe from hell. You were actually supposed to worship the flying spaghetti monster.

That thing about the giant flying spaghetti monster is too funny. Thanks for that laugh. I literally LOLed in bursts for five minutes.

Now for the argument.

I wanted to make this point to but I chose to save the argument.The reason I picked those is because they are common and so, so many people follow them.If there is a giant spaghetti monster, I would tell it that it needs to make itself known and argue I wasn't given a fair chance. And try to avoid hell.But about the flying spaghetti monster is that you wanted to make an extreme example, which means you think it is extreme and thus don't actually believe there is a giant spaghetti monster. Which foils your point.

Another part of my logic is that the religions/faiths/deity that are widely accepted are more likely to be true if there is a god.

Um... what? When does faith in something immediately make it more likely to be true?

Exclusive: The Christian god is much, much less random because in the bible it says he is absolutely perfect.

The Bible also claims the moon is a light source, and that stars are inferior points of light that fall out of the sky.

As for the heaven values some religion/faith/deity heavens are better than others.And why the heck would you go to hell for following the right one?

Cause that deity lied to you, duh.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 5/29/2015 1:34:06 PM, CristianGeek wrote:Ignorence is bliss. Christians will live their life believing they go to heaven when they die. They don't ever think they will waste time therefore it is not a waste of time, it is what they want do do with their time.If you believe you are doing the right thing you feel good.My point there is it is not a waste of time unless you believe it is.

Two more wins for the christian vs. atheists.They didn't feel they wasted their time.

Atheists don't feel that way either, so no points for you.

And why the heck would you go to a heaven for disbelief.In some paralell universe you do, and it could be this one you and i are in but still what kind of rule is that?Do you believe we are in that paralell universe.

Pascal's wager is not about proving a God, not to speak of a particular God like one who let's you go to heaven for sincere belief.The wager is only about 'belief > non belief'. You first have to prove that believing will make pleasant things happen to you before you can infer that believing is always better than not.

Perhaps you have been fooled and (1) belief will actually send people to hell or (2) only those who doubt will go to heaven or (3) maybe God picks at random.The wager alone makes no possibility more likely than another.(1) Christians loose everything; Atheists loose nothing.(2) Many Christians loose everything; most atheists gain everything.(3) Belief in general has no benefits for either side

At 5/29/2015 11:49:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

If they got a sense of joy out of their acts of worship then there is no loss. And even if there were, it'd be a finite loss.

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

It's still a better chance than what atheists have under this condition. Or, God might allow people into Heaven if they earnestly try to worship what they think is God.

Winning the wager of believing in the God that actually exists, and going to the desirable afterlife destination (that is, Heaven).

How is this wager argument good?If you some how convince someone with this argument then they will only follow your religion because they only want to go to heaven. They are not going to be 'real' followers of your religion with this argument, which is why they still won't go to heaven. They won't believe in God as authentic like legit Christians do. They are not really loving God like we do and they are only doing what we do just to go to heaven.

Would you want to have a better reward if you are correct?Say Muslim is correct, you don't know but still logically you should choose christianity. Same bet different reward.

Why choose atheism if it has no reward?

Now does anyone have counter-arguments or other logic?

Are you per chance familiar with "Pascal's Wager?"

Because you are basically just re-wording and slightly complexifying his age-old argument.

AN argument, BTW, which I always had a problem with. The most primary being: since when can we simply "decide" to believe in God? Or not to? Like choosing what to eat fro dinner tonight. What you are proposing--like Pascal--is that we simply "hedge our bets." Which, if there IS a God, ain't gonna fly with him, anyway. LOL

Winning the wager of believing in the God that actually exists, and going to the desirable afterlife destination (that is, Heaven).

How is this wager argument good?If you some how convince someone with this argument then they will only follow your religion because they only want to go to heaven. They are not going to be 'real' followers of your religion with this argument, which is why they still won't go to heaven. They won't believe in God as authentic like legit Christians do. They are not really loving God like we do and they are only doing what we do just to go to heaven.

Hence, I find this argument disgusting and useless.

Not at all. While it is certainly preferable that people choose God out of love for Him, it is also a desirable outcome that people go to Heaven. Even a spiritually weak Christian in Heaven is more desirable than that person being in Hell.

If god doesn't exist it doesn't matter if you are either. The same thing happens. You never think, see, hear, smell, taste, or feel anything again, you are gone forever.

If god does exist then if you are an atheist either that still happens or you go to hell. But if you are Christian you go to heaven.

0 of 2 times the atheist loses.1 of 2 times the Christian wins.

Logically it would make sence to choose to be Christian.Who wouldn't want to go to heaven?

Christians, for the most part are bat sh1t crazy, insane in the membrane. Hell is filled with all the logical, rationale and reasonable critical thinkers, the atheists.

Could you please tell me again how going to Heaven is a reward?

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

To begin with, faith doesn't work really like "Ok, I'm going to believe this because.... what's the worst that could happen?" Not even belief works that way.

I've talked with a lot of people who do not believe in any god, or anything that they cannot see or be shown. I think that's an increasing trend, among younger people especially, because of what the Church has become: pathetic.

The "loss" for people who do not believe, is surrendering a part of themselves to something they cannot buy into. It's an existential loss, as much as it is an intellectual one. It's not a hard or empirical loss. It's a loss that cuts across the core of how they relate to the world, which is why they don't.

There are also those who were once Christians or who were at least culturally connected to Christianity for some period of time in their lives, who have left Christianity because of the experiences they had while that connection existed. Theirs could be an existential loss, but really that's not what's going on. What's going on with those who were once a part of the faith but who then left is an emotional one... and it cuts just as deep (if not deeper) as that with regard to atheists, because association with the faith returns them to a place in their lives which hurt them.

And there are many people who have been hurt by Christians and Christianity; and they judge the faith itself by their experiences with it. I understand why people do that, because the Bible itself says that we shall be known by our acts, and it makes sense. But, there are Christians out there who are different... who are not bigoted, hypocritical and hurtful lunatics.